List Task Attachments (Dalux Field)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds the note 'with media links', indicating output includes links, but does not disclose pagination behavior (beyond schema params) or authorization needs. Behavior is consistent with annotations; no contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the tool's function.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple parameter set (3 params, no enums, full schema coverage) and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. It could be enhanced by briefly noting the return structure (e.g., list of attachment objects), but the current version is adequate for a straightforward list tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond summarizing the tool's purpose (e.g., it does not explain what 'media links' implies for parameter usage). Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action 'List attachments' and specifies the scope 'across all tasks on a project', distinguishing it from sibling tools like dalux_list_form_attachments (form-specific) and dalux_list_files (general files). It also notes the inclusion of media links, making the purpose precise and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

While the description implies usage for task attachments, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., dalux_list_form_attachments, dalux_list_files). There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.